. . . on the prosecutorial power of the state!
Seriously, I had to double check which site I was on when I read this, as this concept of "technicalities" is one I would more typically expect on a right-wing site!
These "technicalities," as you call them, arise from our adversarial system of criminal justice, in which the state has virtually unlimited resources to bring to bear on a prosecution (if it wishes to do so), and a defendant, unless he or she is independently wealthy, will most of the time be represented by an overworked public defender who may have very limited experience and limited resources. And such "technicalities" are often the only check against overzealous, out-of-control police and prosecutors.
Defendants are entitled to as robust a defense as possible, just as prosecutors are free to mount the most robust prosecutions they can (which often include highly exaggerated claims). Both sides are entitled to use modern technology to help them make their respective cases. Regardless of whether the state introduced the GPS data, the defense most assuredly would if it thought that it would help their case.
And yes, long before GPS technology was available, people were tried and convicted of crimes. Need I remind you that a lot of people were also falsely convicted.
The law is neither on the side of the prosecution nor the defense. It is, as it should be, on the side of ensuring fair trials for ALL accused persons, including those you think are "obviously" guilty!
And your comment about lawyers writing laws in order to "build up their billing hours" is not even worth dignifying with a response. I will say, however, that lawyers who really want to make money don't go into criminal law in the first place -- the legal fortunes are made in corporate law!
= new reply since forum marked as read